- 注册
- 2012-09-13
- 消息
- 2,252
- 荣誉分数
- 940
- 声望点数
- 223
中国还有难民
荷兰没大变，右派仍需努力
- 主题发起人 一二三
- 开始时间
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 241,008
- 荣誉分数
- 37,872
- 声望点数
- 1,393
中国还有难民
http://bbs.comefromchina.com/threads/1567961/page-2#post-10405308
http://blog.51.ca/u-226569/?p=1790&cp=all
红教创始人个人简介（视频）
2012年6月10日 | 分类: ＩＴ (全局), 未分类 | 浏览: 340
字体 - 大 中 小
《向前进》报道：红教创始人颜宾的《论毛泽东思想的四大载体》自12年2月发表以来，许多读者来信想知道颜宾的个人简介，《向前进》编辑部征得颜宾同意，在此对颜宾作简要介绍，以飨读者。
颜宾、男、四川自贡人、1961年生，重庆师范大学外语系毕业，历任教师、英语翻译，2001年1月离开中国。
颜宾是加拿大政府向联合国接收的第一位中国政治难民，现任职于加拿大红教研究会，为专职红教工作者，获得加拿大政府经济资助。
颜宾的孩子在加拿大的政府机关工作。
颜宾的政治主张：坚持中国共产党的领导，坚持毛泽东思想，坚持社会主义道路，坚持无产阶级专政。
颜宾的成就：创建了“以毛泽东为崇拜核心的红教”，开发了“温哥华毛泽东山”。
颜宾的希望（颜宾原话）：“我生在红旗下，长在红旗下，是喊着‘毛主席万岁’、‘共产党万岁’长大的，对毛主席、共产党有很深的感情，希望毛泽东思想永远放光芒，希望共产党永远领导中国。
红教同党的领导是紧密连在一起的，信仰红教，崇拜毛主席的人是绝对会拥护共产党的领导的。”
视频《一个海外游子的生日》是颜宾的生日视频，谨以此视频为本文结束语。
请点击视频：http://video.sina.com.cn/v/b/77491305-1658908693.html
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 241,008
- 荣誉分数
- 37,872
- 声望点数
- 1,393
Limits of the far right: Three lessons from the Dutch election
Doug Saunders
The Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Mar. 16, 2017 2:30PM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Mar. 16, 2017 4:32PM EDT
The invasion of the yellow-haired screamers has, for the moment, been held off at the mouth of the Rhine, its brigade of very bad ideas blocked from making a continental landing by a Zuiderzee of Dutch common sense.
What Wednesday’s Dutch election offered us was a lesson in the limits of the far-right populist movement, and a lesson in the best ways, and the worst ways, for citizens and politicians to resist it.
1. This wasn’t a special election. “Anti-immigrant anger threatens to remake the liberal Netherlands” – that was the Washington Post’s headline a week ago. It could have been the headline before the 2012 election, the 2010 election or, in fact, the 2002 election.
Dutch politics changed in 2002, when a single-issue candidate ran against the country’s racial and religious minorities. He was Pim Fortuyn, Mr. Wilders’s predecessor and role model, and he came in second with 17 per cent of the vote, more than Mr. Wilders has ever achieved; some think he would have won even more had he not been assassinated nine days before the vote.
That was a dark moment in European politics: 2002 also saw Jean-Marie Le Pen, Marine Le Pen’s overtly fascist and anti-semitic father, victorious in the first round of the French presidential election; only three years earlier, the extreme-right Freedom Party of Austria had won enough seats to form a government. Anti-minority rage was more intense at the turn of the century than today; we’ve forgotten the recent past.
Since then, somewhere between about 5 per cent and 15 per cent of Dutch voters have consistently been willing to cast a ballot for the politics of intolerance. Mr. Wilders and his party shocked the country in 2010 by winning 15.4 per cent of the vote and 24 of the 150 parliamentary seats, his high-water mark. In 2012, after several of his MPs quit the party in protest against Mr. Wilders’s autocratic management, he won 10 per cent of the vote and 15 seats. This week’s result (13 per cent of the vote and 20 seats) should have been more or less expected.
2. You don’t need to play to the extremists to win. The conservative Mark Rutte will likely return to the Prime Minister’s office after the VVD won the most votes in a third election. But he has repeatedly disgraced himself, and hurt his party’s standing, by giving credibility to Mr. Wilders.
First, in 2010, he allowed Mr. Wilders’s PVV to be a supporting party in his coalition, breaking the long-established “cordon sanitaire” in which all other parties refused to work with explicitly racist movements. This gave Mr. Wilders the power to extract concessions from the government (including a promise, never delivered, of a burka ban) and to bring down the government, which he did in 2012.
Then Mr. Rutte tried parroting Mr. Wilders’s messages of intolerance, by delivering angry messages to Dutch Muslims and immigrants in hopes of winning over voters. This only seemed to embolden the extreme right, and it saw Mr. Rutte’s party drop from 41 parliamentary seats to 32 after many voters departed for more moderate parties. This has also been the pattern in France, where the mainstream conservative Republican Party has parroted the messages of Ms. Le Pen, only to see its support plummet and her’s rise.
3. Their voters are not committed. Most people who vote for Mr. Wilders don’t believe his conspiracy theories about brown-skinned people; they’re just angry at mainstream politics. The results prove this: The biggest winner on Wednesday was the centre-left Green Left Party, which saw its support quadruple to 14 seats; it and other “alternative” moderate parties sucked votes away from Mr. Wilders and from Mr. Rutte.
Of those who did vote for Mr. Wilders on Wednesday, only half had supported him in 2012. “This means quite a soft support base for Wilders,” says Cas Mudde, a Dutch political scientist who predicted a Wilders loss. The Wilders voters, mostly old and uneducated, contain a sliver who really believe his hateful message, and a much larger wedge who just want something different.
On Wednesday, those voters found it elsewhere, in young parties that wanted no part of his message – and political parties across Europe should have been taking notes.
Doug Saunders
The Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Mar. 16, 2017 2:30PM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Mar. 16, 2017 4:32PM EDT
The invasion of the yellow-haired screamers has, for the moment, been held off at the mouth of the Rhine, its brigade of very bad ideas blocked from making a continental landing by a Zuiderzee of Dutch common sense.
What Wednesday’s Dutch election offered us was a lesson in the limits of the far-right populist movement, and a lesson in the best ways, and the worst ways, for citizens and politicians to resist it.
1. This wasn’t a special election. “Anti-immigrant anger threatens to remake the liberal Netherlands” – that was the Washington Post’s headline a week ago. It could have been the headline before the 2012 election, the 2010 election or, in fact, the 2002 election.
Dutch politics changed in 2002, when a single-issue candidate ran against the country’s racial and religious minorities. He was Pim Fortuyn, Mr. Wilders’s predecessor and role model, and he came in second with 17 per cent of the vote, more than Mr. Wilders has ever achieved; some think he would have won even more had he not been assassinated nine days before the vote.
That was a dark moment in European politics: 2002 also saw Jean-Marie Le Pen, Marine Le Pen’s overtly fascist and anti-semitic father, victorious in the first round of the French presidential election; only three years earlier, the extreme-right Freedom Party of Austria had won enough seats to form a government. Anti-minority rage was more intense at the turn of the century than today; we’ve forgotten the recent past.
Since then, somewhere between about 5 per cent and 15 per cent of Dutch voters have consistently been willing to cast a ballot for the politics of intolerance. Mr. Wilders and his party shocked the country in 2010 by winning 15.4 per cent of the vote and 24 of the 150 parliamentary seats, his high-water mark. In 2012, after several of his MPs quit the party in protest against Mr. Wilders’s autocratic management, he won 10 per cent of the vote and 15 seats. This week’s result (13 per cent of the vote and 20 seats) should have been more or less expected.
2. You don’t need to play to the extremists to win. The conservative Mark Rutte will likely return to the Prime Minister’s office after the VVD won the most votes in a third election. But he has repeatedly disgraced himself, and hurt his party’s standing, by giving credibility to Mr. Wilders.
First, in 2010, he allowed Mr. Wilders’s PVV to be a supporting party in his coalition, breaking the long-established “cordon sanitaire” in which all other parties refused to work with explicitly racist movements. This gave Mr. Wilders the power to extract concessions from the government (including a promise, never delivered, of a burka ban) and to bring down the government, which he did in 2012.
Then Mr. Rutte tried parroting Mr. Wilders’s messages of intolerance, by delivering angry messages to Dutch Muslims and immigrants in hopes of winning over voters. This only seemed to embolden the extreme right, and it saw Mr. Rutte’s party drop from 41 parliamentary seats to 32 after many voters departed for more moderate parties. This has also been the pattern in France, where the mainstream conservative Republican Party has parroted the messages of Ms. Le Pen, only to see its support plummet and her’s rise.
3. Their voters are not committed. Most people who vote for Mr. Wilders don’t believe his conspiracy theories about brown-skinned people; they’re just angry at mainstream politics. The results prove this: The biggest winner on Wednesday was the centre-left Green Left Party, which saw its support quadruple to 14 seats; it and other “alternative” moderate parties sucked votes away from Mr. Wilders and from Mr. Rutte.
Of those who did vote for Mr. Wilders on Wednesday, only half had supported him in 2012. “This means quite a soft support base for Wilders,” says Cas Mudde, a Dutch political scientist who predicted a Wilders loss. The Wilders voters, mostly old and uneducated, contain a sliver who really believe his hateful message, and a much larger wedge who just want something different.
On Wednesday, those voters found it elsewhere, in young parties that wanted no part of his message – and political parties across Europe should have been taking notes.
When there are New Canadians, there are old stocks. It is natural for New Canadians to feel disadvantaged from time to time for one reason or another but it looks like some of us are suffering from ANCIS (acute new Canadian inferiority syndrome). Not good.
Good news is there is indeed a cure to ANCIS and the bad news is it is truly the only one.
Here is the remedy:
Follow the Truth instead of the mainstream; try to please Jesus instead of people; worship God instead of God's blessings, i.e., those glorious stuff in the world.
Take the pill (yes, the red one) and you will immediately realize that old stocks and new Canadians are actually not that different.
最后编辑:
- 注册
- 2004-02-10
- 消息
- 12,890
- 荣誉分数
- 3,037
- 声望点数
- 373
Take the pill (yes, the red one) and you will immediately realize that old stocks and new Canadians are actually not that different.When there are New Canadians, there are old stocks. It is natural for New Canadians to feel disadvantaged from time to time for one reason or another but it looks like some of us are suffering from ANCIS (acute new Canadian inferiority syndrome). Not good.
Good news is there is indeed a cure to ANCIS and the bad news is it is truly the only one.
Here is the remedy:
Follow the Truth instead of the mainstream; try to please Jesus instead of people; worship God instead of God's blessings, i.e., those glorious stuff in the world.
Take the pill (yes, the red one) and you will immediately realize that old stocks and new Canadians are actually not that different.
